Montana Ambush Case Goes to Court

[Gluemanz28]

I have a hitch on the back of my SUV. You would think that a guy would remember that it was there after smacking his shin on it more than once. Nop still hit it from time to time. That being said I'm not sure I would remember in a moment of haste that the garage was rigged. My memory isn't what it used to be.

 

[ghuns]

Whats wrong with these people? I was taught NEVER going into someones house, garage, backyard.

I was taught NEVER to shoot at a target I could not clearly identify. I was also taught NEVER to fire a gun at something I didn't intend to destroy and if that something is another human being, I had better be able to articulate why their destruction was necessary.

 

[nakinate]

I was taught NEVER to shoot at a target I could not clearly identify. I was also taught NEVER to fire a gun at something I didn't intend to destroy and if that something is another human being, I had better be able to articulate why their destruction was necessary.

You mean like when Hickok45 tells you that the pop bottle he just shot was causing trouble?

 

[ghuns]

You mean like when Hickok45 tells you that the pop bottle he just shot was causing trouble?

I was thinking more like R. Lee Ermey with his "insurgent" watermelons that taste better after being shot with automatic weapons.

 

[nakinate]

Mmm, too bad I hate watermelon.

 

[ghuns]

Mmm, too bad I hate watermelon.

Maybe just cause you've never had them after they were shot by automatic weapons.

 

[nakinate]

Maybe just cause you've never had them after they were shot by automatic weapons.

This could be true! Who has an Uzi and a melon?

 

[brotherbill3]

Baseball bats. Pfft.

Nobody messes with Ax guy.

Long ax:

The more discrete hand ax:

You seriously think anyone who knows where this guy lives considers breaking in? A gun is just business. An ax says business with a healthy dose of instability.

Should we call you Gimli now? (sorry ya teed that one up kinda, )

 

[femurphy77]

Home owners admit they left garage door open and planted a purse as bait, dare we say "premeditated"?

What little I know about the case is summed up in that sentence. I'd convict.

 

[88GT]

Eh, I'm on the fence with this one. He didn't trick the guy into coming into the garage, he provided an opportunity to commit a crime. If I leave my door to the garage up while mowing the grass, I'm exposing things a lot more valuable than a purse to thievery, so while its not my intent to lure anyone in I'm also providing an opportunity for an opportunistic thief. No one disputes entering the garage is wrong and that there is almost certainly criminal intent there, the question is solely is that reason to use deadly force absent other circumstances. For that, the devil is going to be in the details, and I'm not basing my opinion off just what's in the news article.

So far, this is the only post that makes any real sense.

Regardless of what the law is, you have to ask yourself a moral question- if there is no physical threat to me or another person, how am I justified in taking a life?

Yes, I know all about the legal presumptions about intent of a criminal....but presumptions are just that, and do not seem to reflect reality in this case. Was there a reasonable, actual threat to a person? If not, again, regardless of the law, how is this killing right​?[

How about we stop asking: "what can I get away with?" and start asking "what is the right thing to do?"

And that's why we have the law. Because I can tell you based on the responses in this thread, the "right" thing to do is going to vary.

I was taught NEVER to shoot at a target I could not clearly identify. I was also taught NEVER to fire a gun at something I didn't intend to destroy and if that something is another human being, I had better be able to articulate why their destruction was necessary.

The "why" isn't the issue. Whether or not the "why" is acceptable in a court of law. Beyond that, it's between the doer and his Maker.

 

[BogWalker]

Since he was trying to lure a thief purposefully into his home with the intent of killing him could this be considered vigilantism?

 

[slowG]

Shame on that boy for entering another mans dwelling... Shame on that man for encouraging it with "bait". I would never create an inviting situation for a criminal... Regardless how bad you want to catch someone. The home owner acted recklessly. Am I crazy to think its possibly to have some ability to restrain yourself? This situation, it's clear they were notified of the intruder, I guess there is no right answer when telling someone how to defend their home..im just saying it seems the way he went about things from start to finish was reckless and dare I say unnecessary.

 

[Motorhead302]

the only comment i'll make, is that it's so annoying when the media and the "antis" see things like this, and assume that just because the nra backed a castle doctrine law, that they advocate blazing away at unarmed intruders without assessing the situation first.

ok, i'll add that from the details we've seen so far, i think the guy was reckless to open up "unprovoked". though if he hit the kid squarely enough to kill him, i doubt he was firing "blind" into the garage. a shotgun is not a fire hose. i'm very interested to see more details as they come forth.